Jonah
Posts: 190
Joined: 12/15/2007
Status: offline
|
As I stated, which Army is Greater? Which have greater leaders?
The similarities: Both armies are similar: They were outnumbered, against all odds, which relied on battlefield victories, Elan and it's commanders.
They relied on battlefield succsses. Napoleon did not have the manpower to win in the end, nor did Lee. They relied on quick victories like Austerlitz or the Seven Days. Both were masters of the battlefield: They both took risks and were aggressive. They took temporary risks for long term sucsess.
Their armies were similar: outnumbered but detirmined soldiers. Thet relied on bravery and elan. They had similar tactics, flank attacks or bayonet charges.
Their commanders: Both armies had great battlefield commanders. Davout was like Longstreet, slow, reserved but brilliant. Lannes was like Jackson: Bold, aggressive and takes many risks. Murat like Stuart: A Brilliant cavalry officer but filled with pomp and glory. Ney like Hood: Brave but not althogether brilliant but still a good soldier. Grouchy like Ewell: Not a bad officer but pinned for a bad scenario when he wasn't aggressive enough.
Their differences: The French had a greater chance for victory. The confederates did not. The French were the greatest trained army in the world, Lee's was far from it. The French had the greatest equipment, the Confederates had some of the worst. No army was more orderly then the French, the confederates were realatively disorganized.
The soldiers: The confederates were indiviually greater soldiers but the French were better as a unit. The Confederate artillery was rather poor as well where as the French had the greatest in history.
The Commanders: Napoleon had a different command style: HE was the mastermind and the commanders helped where as Lee was brilliant but relied more on his subordinates.
The verdict: Both Armies were succsesful in the field. Grande Armee had victories like Austerlitz, Ulm (Which I thought was their greatest), Auerstadt, Jena, Freinland, Six days campaign and more. The Army of Northern Virginia had 7 days, 2nd Mannasass, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Wilderness, Cold Harbor, Spottsylvannia, Ream's station and more. In my opinion Napoleon's victories were more amazig but Lee's were against greater odds. The result in this area: Draw.
The troops: Napoleon's troops were not only better in training, but were greater soldiers in their prime. Result: Grande Armee wins.
The Commanders: While Napoleon's marshals were amazing, I preffered the ANV. They were all geniuses. There was never a greater gathering of talent. Not only the major ones like Jackson or Longstreet but even the brigade commanders. They could think for themselves and obey orders. Result: ANV.
The final result: In their prime, I would say the Grande Armee was by far greater. But by the time 1812 came around they deteriorated. More conscripts, lesser Marshals and more mercenaries. So on averege Lee's Army is greater. But all in all, both are great commands, And Lee's Army wouldn't be what it was without Napoleon's original tactics they later used. So all in all: The Grandee Army wins.
I would love all your opinions on this.
|
Printable Version
Who was greater? The Army of Northern Virginia or the G... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread